Alec Schall is Carl Hagelin’s agent and he took to twitter today to solve the lockout.
Both sides say they’ll accept a 50/50 split of revenue. Owners want it in 1 year, players in 5. Let’s compromise at 3 years. Freeze the players current share for 3 years then go to 50/50
Keep the UFA age at 27, bring rookie deals to 2 yrs, push arbitration back 1 yr – Done
Neither side will like the deal. The most clear indication that it’s a true compromise.
Save the Winter Classic, save the All Star weekend, play a 75 game season. Sound good?
Alec Schall is Carl Hagelin’s agent and he took to twitter today to solve the lockout.
Both sides say they’ll accept a 50/50 split of revenue. Owners want it in 1 year, players in 5. Let’s compromise at 3 years. Freeze the players current share for 3 years then go to 50/50
Keep the UFA age at 27, bring rookie deals to 2 yrs, push arbitration back 1 yr – Done
Neither side will like the deal. The most clear indication that it’s a true compromise.
Save the Winter Classic, save the All Star weekend, play a 75 game season. Sound good?
This thread has not been nearly as active in the past couple of days, its sad to see. But personally I have focused my attention elsewhere, mainly football, and I've paid less attention to this lockout which has made it so much easier to handle. They need to just cancel the WC as someone said earlier and get it over with, to be honest nobody else outside of the hockey world is really noticing anyway.
This thread has not been nearly as active in the past couple of days, its sad to see. But personally I have focused my attention elsewhere, mainly football, and I've paid less attention to this lockout which has made it so much easier to handle. They need to just cancel the WC as someone said earlier and get it over with, to be honest nobody else outside of the hockey world is really noticing anyway.
probably because of the hurricane, and lack of any new info anywhere (also mainly because of the hurricane)...
Alec Schall is Carl Hagelin’s agent and he took to twitter today to solve the lockout.
Both sides say they’ll accept a 50/50 split of revenue. Owners want it in 1 year, players in 5. Let’s compromise at 3 years. Freeze the players current share for 3 years then go to 50/50
Keep the UFA age at 27, bring rookie deals to 2 yrs, push arbitration back 1 yr – Done
Neither side will like the deal. The most clear indication that it’s a true compromise.
Save the Winter Classic, save the All Star weekend, play a 75 game season. Sound good?
Exactly. The players should agree to the linked 50/50 split phased in over a shorter amount of time than they proposed and they should try to get what they can in terms of UFA, ELCs, contract length and write it off as a win.
Exactly. The players should agree to the linked 50/50 split phased in over a shorter amount of time than they proposed and they should try to get what they can in terms of UFA, ELCs, contract length and write it off as a win.
Owners should agree to that too. Lets see if they'll negotiate something that drastically different than their proposal.
Owners should agree to that too. Lets see if they'll negotiate something that drastically different than their proposal.
I think the owners want to maintain linkage more than anything. If the players propose a deal that is linked, I think the owners would be willing to negotiate on the other issues. Obviously I'm not sure of this but it seems obvious that the next step to actually getting something done is for the players to agree to linkage in exchange for getting better terms on UFA, ELCs and contract lengths.
I think the owners want to maintain linkage more than anything. If the players propose a deal that is linked, I think the owners would be willing to negotiate on the other issues. Obviously I'm not sure of this but it seems obvious that the next step to actually getting something done is for the players to agree to linkage in exchange for getting better terms on UFA, ELCs and contract lengths.
The owners do not want linkage--the expired CBA had the percentage for the players linked to revenue: if revenue went up, then the % that went to the players went up. The players share started at 54% in 2005 and increased to 57% because of the linkage. All the current proposals have the players % fixed, with no increase because of revenue growth over the life of the contract.
The owners do not want linkage--the expired CBA had the percentage for the players linked to revenue: if revenue went up, then the % that went to the players went up. The players share started at 54% in 2005 and increased to 57% because of the linkage. All the current proposals have the players % fixed, with no increase because of revenue growth over the life of the contract.
Brooklyn, I don't mean to be rude, but a fixed percentage is EXACTLY the definition of linkage. Salaries at 50% of revenues (i.e. tied to revenues); if revenues go up, the cap goes up proportionately. Linkage.
Brooklyn, I don't mean to be rude, but a fixed percentage is EXACTLY the definition of linkage. Salaries at 50% of revenues (i.e. tied to revenues); if revenues go up, the cap goes up proportionately. Linkage.
Obviously, there is linkage--neither side has gotten away from that, to this point anyway. How and where has always been the issue.
Obviously, there is linkage--neither side has gotten away from that, to this point anyway. How and where has always been the issue.
Well, the players have - they want fixed contracts with no deferral or escrow. That translates to fixed cost and therefore a variable percentage.
That's the fundamental stumbling block that needs to be removed before we will see any progress. The key will be a reasonable deferral plan outside the 50/50 IMO.
Well, the players have - they want fixed contracts with no deferral or escrow. That translates to fixed cost and therefore a variable percentage.
That's the fundamental stumbling block that needs to be removed before we will see any progress. The key will be a reasonable deferral plan outside the 50/50 IMO.
If the owners are not willing to gradually get to 50 %--for them the players having to give in on the issue of fixed value of their contracts it's because the owners want what they want--NOW--not tomorrow even if tomorrow is relatively soon. To me that's pretty much an acknowledgement that they cannot control their spending and there's not enough revenue that they're making--even though they are super wealthy people to begin with. Another free agency and another heap of big spending--but I don't think the next free agency is going to be any different from this one. There is always going to be this war to outbid each other. One way the owners could really fix the whole shebang forever and ever would be to get rid of free agency altogether.
Well, the players have - they want fixed contracts with no deferral or escrow. That translates to fixed cost and therefore a variable percentage.
That's the fundamental stumbling block that needs to be removed before we will see any progress. The key will be a reasonable deferral plan outside the 50/50 IMO.
Not exactly true. The players will sign up for the 50-50. But what they want, which is what the other leagues got, was the honoring of existing contracts. Which means a phase into a 50-50.
Not exactly true. The players will sign up for the 50-50. But what they want, which is what the other leagues got, was the honoring of existing contracts. Which means a phase into a 50-50.
None of the players' offers gave what you are describing. They either offered a fixed dollar floor on the players portion, or that all 13% of all existing contracts be permanently held off the calculation.
A % phase to 50% would be the logical solution, but neither side has broached the idea yet. Both going for broke (pun intended).
None of the players' offers gave what you are describing. They either offered a fixed dollar floor on the players portion, or that all 13% of all existing contracts be permanently held off the calculation.
A % phase to 50% would be the logical solution, but neither side has broached the idea yet. Both going for broke (pun intended).
Phasing in a 50-50, while the existing contracts expire is what the players are looking for. That is, in effect, holding the existing contracts off of the calculation. THat is what both the NBA and NFL did. A 50-50, but with all existing contracts being completely honored and paid for by the owners.
Phasing in a 50-50, while the existing contracts expire is what the players are looking for. That is, in effect, holding the existing contracts off of the calculation. THat is what both the NBA and NFL did. A 50-50, but with all existing contracts being completely honored and paid for by the owners.
It would never get to 50-50, though, with 13% of current contracts being held off the calculation. It's a mirage.
What you're suggesting though, is completely reasonable, but it hasn't really been offered by either side. They likely both know they'll land there eventually, but don't want to be the first to offer it, because they know the other side will say "OK, we'll give you that in exchange for ________".
